Canon announces the RF 800mm F5.6L IS USM and the RF 1200mm F8L IS USM

[Berowne]

Prices in Germany:
RF 800: 19.949€
RF1200: 23.449€
(My trusted local Dealer in Frankfurt am Main)

 

[AlanF]

Don't get fooled folks. These are EF 400mm F/2.8 and EF 600mm f/4 with a 2X TC and RF adapter attached (the silver thing nearest the camera). The weights and MFDs are also exactly what you'd expect - even the MTF charts are identical.
Save your money and buy a TC. You may lose a tiny bit of corrected IQ but you'll save yourself £/$ 6,000 and still have two lenses, not one.

And, more evidence is that the minimum focal distance of the 800/5.6 is 2.6m, close to the 2.5m of the RF 400/2.8 and EF 400/4 III. Similarly, the RF 1200/8 is 4.3m compared with 4.2m for the RF 600/4. TCs don't alter the mfd aside from small geometric changes.

 

[[email protected]]

One factor we won't know for a while is what sort of "real" price the lenses will get, once supply constraints ease. It may make sense for Canon to have a very high suggested retail price at a time when shortages allow it to sell at exaggerated prices, which could then be converted to perpetual discounts later. The "real" price for the 600mm f/4 II was closer to $11.5k new (vs $13k list) in the US prior to the Mark III being released. Perhaps the real price for the 800 f/8 will be $14k rather than $17k once the parts shortages ease.

The advantage of putting out effectively-teleconverted older lenses is probably production efficiencies. This would work great for a company whose strategy is to gain share based in part on price. But Canon hasn't acted like a company trying to drive prices down (costs, yes).

This leads us to a showdown of sorts. Assuming that the MTF charts are somewhat accurate, knowledgeable supertele buyers aren't going to pay an extra $5-$7k for a less flexible lens of same or lower image quality. Most people dropping ~$15k on a lens are knowledgeable. Maybe nuts, but knowledgeable, usually. Which means one of the following are true:
1 - These will sit on the price lists to flesh out the comprehensiveness of the RF line, but won't be actually bought/used much
2 - Canon will lower the prices significantly
3 - There is some sort of special image quality magic that makes these better than teleconverted lenses, and we're all a bunch of geeks jumping to early conclusions

I'm betting on #2 for now. I think Canon sees a small market where people don't like using adapters and/or teleconverters, and they're ripe for exploitation, and then they'll lower prices eventually to make the comparison versus the base lenses less dramatic.

 

[Cochese]

Considering the cost of the EF 1200mm lens, this is a bargain!

 

[Berowne]

And, more evidence is that the minimum focal distance of the 800/5.6 is 2.6m, close to the 2.5m of the RF 400/2.8 and EF 400/4 III. Similarly, the RF 1200/8 is 4.3m compared with 4.2m for the RF 600/4. TCs don't alter the mfd aside from small geometric changes.

This is a modular production. The front Element is reused with different rear elements. Other companies do the same. So what?

 

[unfocused]

I'm not sure how even professionals afford these lenses...

I'd wager that very few of these lenses are bought by professionals. As @privatebydesign referenced earlier, most lenses like this are purchased by enthusiasts who have high disposable income and spend it on their hobby.

I also suspect that a large percentage goes to rental houses who need to have the lenses in stock. If you are in business, you can deduct the full cost of rentals, whereas a purchase has to be depreciated. If you purchase, you are also tying up your capital in a non-liquid asset, which is usually a bad business strategy. For enthusiasts, unless you live someplace where you can use theses lenses on a regular basis, it makes more sense to rent than own.

 

[entoman]

As I have pointed out in other posts, Nikon and Sony don't have these huge price differentials - it's Canon Europe's price gouging policy. So, my recent purchases have been on the gray market or when there are huge discounts.

Me too, as they say. I just wouldn't consider paying UK prices. Almost all of my gear for the last 7-8 years has come direct from a Hong Kong exporter, who provides a full 3 year parts and labour UK warranty, and superb all round service. If my gear is stolen, it will be covered by insurance, as long as I retain the receipts, contrary to the nonsense spouted by Photo Bunny.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Across the web it's being widely shared that BWU (Big White Users) are happier to keep using the 2.8 and f/4 versions with TC's instead. Canon might just see an increase in extender sales from this, not much else.

 

[AlanF]

This is a modular production. The front Element is reused with different rear elements. Other companies do the same. So what?

It's far more than that - they have used not just the front element but all of the internal elements with just an extender inserted: see this earlier post and subsequent:

Here is everything I dug up on Canon Japan including the MTFs of these lenses and the EF Mark III/2xTCIII (no MTFs exist for the RF 2x and the RF 400/600).
1200:
View attachment 202588
600:
View attachment 202589
800:
View attachment 202590
400:
View attachment 202591
RF 2xTC:
View attachment 202596

1200:
View attachment 202592
600III/2xTCIII
View attachment 202593
800:
View attachment 202594
400III/2xTCIII:
View attachment 202595


I don't know about you but these look really similar with just a slight edge for these new optics over using a 2xTC on the Mark III lenses. Probably using an RF TC on RF400/600 would be identical to these new lenses because people claim the RF TCs are a step above the EFIIIs.

These lenses are just built in 2xTCs.

I see these being used by governments, survelience or maybe wildlife videographers that would add additional TCs to these for the super long reach. But for stills photography I'd save the $$$ and buy a 400 or 600 and use the 2xTC to get these focal lengths given the price and the MTFs.

The only difference I see is that one extra UD element just ahead of the "TC" element.

 

[entoman]

I shot bird mostly at f/10 for several years. No doubt you'd claim those pics were no good, but I was satisfied with many of them.

I'm currently using the cheapo RF 800mm F11 for a lot of my bird photography, and for most situations I don't find the fixed F11 aperture limiting. Even at F11 depth of field is very shallow and nearly always enough to isolate the subject nicely from the background.

The only practical limitation is the focusing speed, which is slower than when using my EF100-400mm with 1.4x extender, so I use usually the zoom when shooting BIF, and the 800mm F11 when shooting perching birds and waders.

Ultimately, I'll probably end up with the RF 100-500mm and 1.4x extender, but I'm also using a 5DMkiv, so until I get around to replacing that with another RF body, I'll be sticking with the EF zoom.

I don't see much point personally in going beyond 800mm focal length, because atmospheric haze and/or heat haze often have a major negative impact on subject sharpness if the latter is more than 100m away - this is particularly noticeable in Africa, and in coastal locations at home in the UK, even quite early in the mornings, when most of my bird photography is done.

 

[Deleted member 387325]

I don’t see Canon reducing the prices on these, personally, even if they don’t sell. These are pride lenses for marketing and didn’t cost them much to make. Won’t sell a ton but they set a bar and they’d be foolish to then move that bar, IMO. Personally, this choice leaves a bad taste in my mouth as a new Canon customer for the RF line. It’s a bit disrespectful to the customers to inflate the prices like this so brazenly for some welded on TCs. Corporations that get comfortable start acting like their customers are stupid, and we’re seeing some evidence of that here.

 

[dilbert]

But, it's not photographers who are causing species extinction, it's you with your use of plastics, rearing too much beef with accompanying deforestation, burning fossil fuels via all of your energy demanding processes etc. On the other hand, it's David Attenborough with his team of nature photographers and all the enthusiastic amateurs who are bringing to the world what is happening and the love of nature that have the massive beneficial effects of highlighting and inspiring attempts to rectify these climate disasters.

Whataboutism at its finest.

 

[Del Paso]

price is on DPReview and is accurate that it be $17k & $20k for 800 & 1200 respectively.

Cheap!!!!
In Europe: Euro 19949 and 23449 ! No comment.
About 25% more.

 

[Del Paso]

Well, firstly I fully agree that Brexit was a terrible decission that we (in the UK) will all have to live with - even those of us who voted against it.

But - Brexit itself cannot explain a 50 %/ £1000 markup on a lens.
There is something more going on, espically as people will be able to purchase the lens from places such as Hong Kong, pay the shipping, pay all the relivent taxes and still save hundreds of pounds.

We didn' t have Frenchxit, but nevertheless are charged Euro 19949 and 23449. How to justify this b.llsh.t pricing?

 

[dolina]

Cheap!!!!
In Europe: Euro 19949 and 23449 ! No comment.
About 25% more.

Email Mr. Tony Leung or Wilson Cheung at [email protected] New Sankyo Camera Co, Ltd. Shop G-19 Golden Mile Holiday Inn 50 Nathan Rd. Kowloon, Hong Kong.

You may get the lens at US MSRP or lower. The round trip ticket to HK may be cheaper than buying it in the EU.

 

[Berowne]

It's far more than that - they have used not just the front element but all of the internal elements with just an extender inserted: see this earlier post and subsequent:

Of course, this is rational. Leica did it in 1996 with the modular Apo-Telyt-System.

 

[Maximilian]

... with some eye watering prices of 17K and 20K respectively ...

Call it "eye watering"? Breath taking at least!
I feel my heart stopping for a moment.

Canon, please stay realistic to your customers.

 

[ISO64]

This post may not be directly related to RF 800/1200, but...

Can anyone who owns a big EF white (500 or 600) and any close focus adaptor check what are the minimum and maximum focusing distances when 1.4X and 2X are used in standard config (lens>TC>adaptor>camera) versus "non advertised" (lens>adaptor>TC>camera)? I found that using "non advertised" config keeps all focusing points active, as oposed to just central 1+4 on my 7D2.
Admin: feel free to move this to a new discussion
ISO64

 

[Nemorino]

And, more evidence is that the minimum focal distance of the 800/5.6 is 2.6m, close to the 2.5m of the RF 400/2.8 and EF 400/4 III. Similarly, the RF 1200/8 is 4.3m compared with 4.2m for the RF 600/4. TCs don't alter the mfd aside from small geometric changes.

And the max aperture: 400/600 up to f/32.
800/1200 up to f/64.

 

[Juangrande]

Thanks for digging up the MTF charts. Exactly what we needed.

The price difference between the 1200 and the 600 + 2x TC is $6,400. For most buyers they'll already have the TC, so it's really $7k.

It really does appear that the 800 has no benefit over a 600 + 1.4x TC.

It's been a long time since an 800 beat a 600. I was hoping today would be the day.

Did a spreadsheet of the lengths/widths/weights/MFDs of the EF III and RF versions of these lenses. Confirms the obvious, but some people might find some of the data handy as they argue.

Yes you can add teleconverters to the RF 400 and 600 lenses and have that versatility and probably more advantageous to most. The advantage for the RF 800/1200 would be the ability to further add teleconverters to these new lenses and get up to 1600mm and 2400mm reach.